Stephanopoulos, ABC have not fully disclosed Clinton ties

[txradioguy]

Fact-driven, fair, aggressive journalism animates American politics. As an investigative journalist, I am accustomed to asking tough questions. When I publish, I expect tough questions in turn,

That's not what ABC News This Week host and chief anchor George Stephanopoulos delivered when he interviewed me about my new book on the Clinton Foundation last month. There's a reason. Though Stephanopoulos belatedly disclosed$75,000 in donations to the foundation, he has yet to disclose his much deeper relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

When Stephanopoulos invited me on his Sunday program, I knew that he had worked as a top adviser and campaign manager to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but I didn't know about his donations or his other ties to the foundation founded and overseen by the former president and his wife, potential future president Hillary Clinton.

I agreed to be interviewed, expecting a robust examination of my new book, Clinton Cash, and my reporting on the Clintons' accumulation of massive personal wealth, cronyism and the lack of transparency surrounding the Clintons' foundation.

I expected probing questions, similar to the ones I've received from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, Chris Wallace on Fox News and Frank Sesno on CNN.

What I did not expect — what no one expected — was the sort of "hidden hand journalism" that has contributed to America's news media's crisis of credibility in particular, and Americans' distrust of the news media more broadly.

If Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donations to the very foundation I was there to talk about, perhaps it would have put the aggressive posture of his interview with me in context.

But he didn't.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O'Brien.

ABC's most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served as a panel moderator at CGI's annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in 2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent resignation.

Obviously, Stephanopoulos has favorable feelings toward Hillary and Bill Clinton; he gives their foundation his money and his time. Big-time news media personalities have one thing in very short supply — time. Regular participation in Clinton Foundation events shows a deeper commitment to the Clintons than just the donations.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/16/stephanopoulos-abc-clinton-schweizer-foundation-hillary-column/27436475/

[SVPete]

I realize that "news"papers and "news" magazines frequently publish guest editorials of opposing views. But even if that's the case with this article, USA Today publishing it should be a signal to ABC that it's time to put their finger into the air and stick a fork in Step-In-Awful-Stuff. He may be done. And ABC's need at this point may be to appear to be on top of and responding quickly to a developing situation.

[txradioguy]

I realize that "news"papers and "news" magazines frequently publish guest editorials of opposing views. But even if that's the case with this article, USA Today publishing it should be a signal to ABC that it's time to put their finger into the air and stick a fork in Step-In-Awful-Stuff. He may be done. And ABC's need at this point may be to appear to be on top of and responding quickly to a developing situation.

Sadly thought they won't.

CBS didn't change with "fake but accurate"

NBC hasn't changed with the revelations of Brian Williams

MSNBC hasn't changed one bit after Olbermann did the same thing Steffie did.  Hell they let Al Sharpton have a prime time show AND continue being the race bating ass clown that runs the National Action Network on the side.

ABC has already scoffed at the criticism and declared that Georgie did nothing wrong.


Like with Liberalism in general...each failure...each time they are exposed for the frauds they are...it just causes them to double down and become even more corrupt and bankrupt of any shred of journalistic integrity.

[obumazombie]

Don't forget the New York Times and Jayson Blair.
That episode didn't change them one bit.

As for Snuffleupagus, Peter Schweitzer (Author of "Clinton Cash") is fighting back hard against our hapless Georgie...

During an appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer blasted ABC’s George Stephanopoulos for failing to disclose $75,000 worth of donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Speaking to Brian Stelter, Schweizer maintained that after his interview with the ABC anchor that he "thought he was simply asking tough questions.

Now I think the revelations that have come out put the interview at least in my mind in a totally different context.”

Schweizer explained that when he sat down with Stephanopoulos last month he had no idea about the Clinton Foundation donations:

I sort of believed and assumed he had sort of put that in the past.
And I thought he was simply asking tough questions.

Now I think the revelations that have come out put the interview at least in my mind in a totally different context.
I don’t mind tough questions, but you wonder what’s the motivation: is it the search for truth, or is it because he’s trying to, in a sense, do something to benefit the Clinton Foundation which he obviously has some affinity for?

Stelter tried to defend Stephanopoulos’ failure to disclose his donations and argued “[y]ou’re the kind of guy who said what you did in the past doesn’t affect your current work.
Isn’t that sort of Stephanopoulos’ defense -- what is in his past is in his past, it’s behind him, it doesn’t affect his reporting work today?” 

The Clinton Cash author pushed back and explained that when he spoke to Stephanopoulos he assumed that he was disconnected from the Clintons:

Well, I was operating under that assumption.
I have no problem with people bringing up my past.

I have no problem with people knowing Stephanopoulos’ past.

But I very much figure we need to judge him based on his journalism, except for the fact that we now know he has these entangling relationships with the Clintons, which doesn’t make it in the past, it makes it in the present.

And that is, I think, a very, very different context for which to evaluate all of this.

Despite Stelter accusing Schweizer of trying to manufacture a “publicity ploy” by asking for another interview with Stephanopoulos, the Clinton Cash author reiterated the importance of allowing ABC’s audience to actually hear the details in his book:

But it puts everything that occurred in that interview in a very different context.
I would welcome the opportunity to come and share with the audience what I uncovered in the book and have, you know, even an aggressive conversation with somebody there about it.
--
Part of the frustration there was I never really got a chance to explain or describe what is in the book.
So, it was a very stuttered conversation.

That’s what was very frustrating to me about it.
And now, I think it’s incumbent upon them to allow their audience to hear the evidence that’s in the book.

full article...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2015/05/18/peter-schweizer-hits-stephanopoulos-over-clinton-foundation-donations